9-11 Thoughts From Prof. Long
9-11 Thoughts From Prof. Long. This was a sort of an e-mail back and forth by QUSL's favorite free thinking teacher, Prof. Long. Some of his responses to comments, here:
The commentator writes, "While I agree with many of your comments, to voice those strong opinions in connection with the 9/11 anniversary observance is totally out of place. You have taken one of the saddest days in American history and turned it into an opportunity to get on your political soapbox. There are more appropriate times and places." Considering the fact that my emial is dated 9/7, four days before the 9/11 anniversay, how I improperly "taken" the day? Moreover, when would have been a proper time to comment? A week before or after 9/11/07? A month before or after 9/11/06? Isn't the proper time to comment when people are beginning to think about what 9/11 meant or means?
The commentator continues, "Furthermore, your characterization of 9/11 as a "relatively small" tragedy is a distortion of the truth. Simply comparing the number of dead resulting from 9/11 to other horrific events in world history does not make the attacks on New York and Washington any less grotesque." Any less grotesque than it is? Certainly not. But just as I do not mean to suggest that it does not hurt when someone steps on your toes, I know that having someone step on ones toes is a relatively minor hurt compared to someone hacking off one's foot. And I do mean to suggest that, relatively speaking, 9/11 is more like having one's toes stepped on, while the other events I mentioned are more like having one's foot hacked off.
Yet the commentator suggests that it is not the number of bodies, it is the motivational-context that it important. "Al-qaeda committed an unprecedented act of terror, caused massive loss of human life and in the process destroyed one of the symbols of America." If dropping the A-bombs, first on one city and then another, is not an "unprecedented act of terror, caus[ing] massive loss of human life" than nothing is. One can rationalize it if one wants, and maybe it is in fact justified. But do not engage in the intellectual dishonesty of not labeling the use of the A-bombs as acts of terror, and do not deny that it was primarily civilians (worst yet from our American values, women, children, the elderly) who literally took the hit. Another aspect of my point, the part you completely ignore, is that there is the other side of an event. I am quite certain that the Japanese who lost family and friends viewed the bombings as tragic ends to the war. As to "in the process destroy[ing] one of the symbols of America," you got that right,partly. The WTC were a symbol less of America, and more of Western financial power. That was what was attacked. But guess what, Western finance is still sprinting along, viewing 9/11 as a minor event. Remember at the end of 'All Quiet on the Western Front' the antihero is killed by a bullet in the head, and the days report reads 'all quit on the western front.' In short, a soldier is dead yet nothing important has happenned. Perhaps it is sad to say, though there were personal losses on 9/11, in the grander scheme nothing really important happened.
By the way, why are not more people taking the time to remembere the Oklahome City Bombing? Is it perhaps the bombing was committed by an American, which might force us to think about ourselves in a less than positive light.
Hard questions. Still, they need to be asked . . and answered.
The commentator writes, "While I agree with many of your comments, to voice those strong opinions in connection with the 9/11 anniversary observance is totally out of place. You have taken one of the saddest days in American history and turned it into an opportunity to get on your political soapbox. There are more appropriate times and places." Considering the fact that my emial is dated 9/7, four days before the 9/11 anniversay, how I improperly "taken" the day? Moreover, when would have been a proper time to comment? A week before or after 9/11/07? A month before or after 9/11/06? Isn't the proper time to comment when people are beginning to think about what 9/11 meant or means?
The commentator continues, "Furthermore, your characterization of 9/11 as a "relatively small" tragedy is a distortion of the truth. Simply comparing the number of dead resulting from 9/11 to other horrific events in world history does not make the attacks on New York and Washington any less grotesque." Any less grotesque than it is? Certainly not. But just as I do not mean to suggest that it does not hurt when someone steps on your toes, I know that having someone step on ones toes is a relatively minor hurt compared to someone hacking off one's foot. And I do mean to suggest that, relatively speaking, 9/11 is more like having one's toes stepped on, while the other events I mentioned are more like having one's foot hacked off.
Yet the commentator suggests that it is not the number of bodies, it is the motivational-context that it important. "Al-qaeda committed an unprecedented act of terror, caused massive loss of human life and in the process destroyed one of the symbols of America." If dropping the A-bombs, first on one city and then another, is not an "unprecedented act of terror, caus[ing] massive loss of human life" than nothing is. One can rationalize it if one wants, and maybe it is in fact justified. But do not engage in the intellectual dishonesty of not labeling the use of the A-bombs as acts of terror, and do not deny that it was primarily civilians (worst yet from our American values, women, children, the elderly) who literally took the hit. Another aspect of my point, the part you completely ignore, is that there is the other side of an event. I am quite certain that the Japanese who lost family and friends viewed the bombings as tragic ends to the war. As to "in the process destroy[ing] one of the symbols of America," you got that right,partly. The WTC were a symbol less of America, and more of Western financial power. That was what was attacked. But guess what, Western finance is still sprinting along, viewing 9/11 as a minor event. Remember at the end of 'All Quiet on the Western Front' the antihero is killed by a bullet in the head, and the days report reads 'all quit on the western front.' In short, a soldier is dead yet nothing important has happenned. Perhaps it is sad to say, though there were personal losses on 9/11, in the grander scheme nothing really important happened.
By the way, why are not more people taking the time to remembere the Oklahome City Bombing? Is it perhaps the bombing was committed by an American, which might force us to think about ourselves in a less than positive light.
Hard questions. Still, they need to be asked . . and answered.
posted by lonely libertarian at 10:13 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home